The second biggest mall in the country is just a short drive away. Amazing selection of stores and restauarnts (including the Cheesecake Factory) that you won't find anywhere else. New additions ju...
más información

This is a fun little area with familiar stores like the Apple Store and Banana Republic and Trader Joes... but also a great covered farmers market with some Amish baked goods and gourmet foods.

The factor on the top of the table is the simpler one. When we perform Gauss' method on a linear system, ignoring the constants on the right side and so paying attention only to the coefficients on the left-hand side, we either end with every variable leading some row or else we find that some variable does not lead a row, that is, that some variable is free. (Of course, "ignoring the constants on the right" is formalized by considering the associated homogeneous system. We are simply putting aside for the moment the possibility of a contradictory equation.)

A nice insight into the factor on the top of this table at work comes from considering the case of a system having the same number of equations as variables. This system will have a solution, and the solution will be unique, if and only if it reduces to an echelon form system where every variable leads its row, which will happen if and only if the associated homogeneous system has a unique solution. Thus, the question of uniqueness of solution is especially interesting when the system has the same number of equations as variables.

A square matrix is if it is the matrix of coefficients of a homogeneous system with a unique solution. It is otherwise, that is, if it is the matrix of coefficients of a homogeneous system with infinitely many solutions.

The first of these matrices is nonsingular while the second is singular

because the first of these homogeneous systems has a unique solution while the second has infinitely many solutions.

We have made the distinction in the definition because a system (with the same number of equations as variables) behaves in one of two ways, depending on whether its matrix of coefficients is nonsingular or singular. A system where the matrix of coefficients is nonsingular has a unique solution for any constants on the right side: for instance, Gauss' method shows that this system

has the unique solution
and
. On the other hand, a system where the matrix of coefficients is singular never has a unique solution— it has either no solutions or else has infinitely many, as with these.

Thus, "singular" can be thought of as connoting "troublesome", or at least "not ideal".

The above table has two factors. We have already considered the factor along the top: we can tell which column a given linear system goes in solely by considering the system's left-hand side— the constants on the right-hand side play no role in this factor. The table's other factor, determining whether a particular solution exists, is tougher. Consider these two

The most common implementation of MVP is one which uses a Passive View (a view which is for all intents and purposes "dumb"), containing little to no logic. If MVC and MVP are different it is because the C and P do different things. In MVP, the P observes models and updates views when models change. The P effectively binds models to views, a responsibility which was previously held by controllers in MVC.

Solicited by a view, presenters perform any work to do with user requests and pass data back to them. In this respect, they retrieve data, manipulate it and determine how the data should be displayed in the view. In some implementations, the presenter also interacts with a service layer to persist data (models). Models may trigger events but it's the presenters role to subscribe to them so that it can update the view. In this passive architecture, we have no concept of direct data binding. Views expose setters which presenters can use to set data.

The benefit of this change from MVC is that it increases the testability of our application and provides a more clean separation between the view and the model. This isn't however without its costs as the lack of data binding support in the pattern can often mean having to take care of this task separately.

Although a common implementation of a
Passive View
is for the view to implement an interface, there are variations on it, including the use of events which can decouple the View from the Presenter a little more. As we don't have the interface construct in JavaScript, we're using more a protocol than an explicit interface here. It's technically still an API and it's probably fair for us to refer to it as an interface from that perspective.

There is also a
Supervising Controller
variation of MVP, which is closer to the MVC and patterns as it provides data-binding from the Model directly from the View. Key-value observing (KVO) plugins (such as Derick Bailey's Backbone.ModelBinding plugin) tend to bring Backbone out of the Passive View and more into the Supervising Controller or MVVM variations.

MVP is generally used most often in enterprise-level applications where it's necessary to reuse as much presentation logic as possible. Applications with very complex views and a great deal of user interaction may find that MVC doesn't quite fit the bill here as solving this problem may mean heavily relying on multiple controllers. In MVP, all of this complex logic can be encapsulated in a presenter, which can simplify maintenance greatly.

As MVP views are defined through an interface and the interface is technically the only point of contact between the system and the view (other than a presenter), this pattern also allows developers to write presentation logic without needing to wait for designers to produce layouts and graphics for the application.

Depending on the implementation, MVP may be easier to automatically unit test than MVC. The reason often cited for this is that the presenter can be used as a complete mock of the user-interface and so it can be unit tested independent of other components. In my experience this really depends on the languages we are implementing MVP in (there's quite a difference between opting for MVP for a JavaScript project over one for say, ASP.net).

"We were harassed, we were bullied and we were body-shamed for $7.25 an hour," said former cheerleader Ainsley Parish, who is among the five who are suing. "The Houston Texans should not have given us a uniform if they did not want us to become an army."

The lawsuit, which was announced in a press conference on Friday, is being brought by prominent attorney Gloria Allred.

"These women all had the same dream: They all aspired to be an integral part of the Houston Texans. And they looked forward to promoting the team," Allred said during a press conference. "But their dreams were shattered by the reality of their lives as Houston Texans cheerleaders."

Allred saidthe women were harassed, intimidated and forced to live in fear." She said they were threatened with being fired if they spoke out. The cheerleaders were also instructed not to speak with players and weren't paid for making public appearances.

One of the cheerleaders, Hannah Turnbow, was allegedly assaulted by a fan and was told to "suck it up and act like nothing had happened," according to Allred. She said there are photos of the injury the cheerleader sustained.

Turnbow said she and her teammates were expected to attend events where no transportation or security was provided.